They're described in
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf
I've put the major classes of test case in place (as I see them) - still
to do: JJC's entailment (whether we want to approve it or not), round
out the test cases for the other XSD datatypes.
Test case name & description... names are as given in the manifest file
(relative to http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/) -
see manifest file for related files.
test001
A simple datatype production; a language+datatype production.
Simply duplicate the constructs under
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
test002
A parser is not required to know about well-formed datatyped literals.
non-well-formed-literal-1
Without datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped literal
cannot be detected.
non-well-formed-literal-2
With appropriate datatype knowledge, a "badly-formed" datatyped
literal is a semantic error.
semantic-equivalence-within-type-1
Demonstrating the semantic equivalence of two lexical forms of the
same datatyped value.
semantic-equivalence-within-type-2
As semantic-equivalence-within-type-1; the entailment works both ways.
language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-1
language-important-for-non-dt-entailment-2
Language attributes on a datatyped literal make them distinct for
the purposes of non-datatype-aware entailments.
language-ignored-for-numeric-types-1
language-ignored-for-numeric-types-2
language-ignored-for-numeric-types-3
Language doesn't affect the semantic equivalence of some datatypes,
when doing a DT-entailment.
semantic-equivalence-between-datatypes
Members of different datatypes may be semantically equivalent.
This last one needs confirmation.
--
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Generalisation is never appropriate.